44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech and for her work on this issue. I know that she is coming at this from a genuine place of concern for those with addictions and substance abuse issues.
I wonder if the member could explain to the House why she chose to exclude certain individuals from being included in what she sees as treatment options when they enter prison.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to join the second reading debate of Bill C-283 regarding addiction treatment in our prison system. Let me begin by thanking the hon. member for bringing this legislation forward and for recognizing the role that addictions play in crime.
I want to start by letting the member know that the government will not be supporting her legislation, but I will go into details of that now. Having met with the hon. member, I know that she is extremely well intentioned in bringing this legislation forward, and I do give her my personal commitment that I will work with her to ensure the ideas that she wants to bring forward are looked at.
Substance abuse must absolutely be treated as a health and social issue. Any Canadian who uses substances should be able to access the services and supports that they need. Anyone incarcerated in Canada's federal institutions should have access to quality, safe, person-centred and holistic care, regardless of institutional placement or type of offence. Indeed, these programs exist, and they are comprehensive and available to all offenders. They exist as part of the Government of Canada's broad and concrete approach to strengthen public health support for all Canadians.
Included in the 2021 Speech from the Throne was:
To build a healthy future, we must also strengthen our healthcare system and public health supports for all Canadians, especially seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, vulnerable members of our communities, and those who have faced discrimination by the very system that is meant to heal.
This is a key part of the mandate letters of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and the Minister of Public Safety.
The December 2021 mandate letter asked the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to:
Advance a comprehensive strategy to address problematic substance use in Canada, supporting efforts to improve public education to reduce stigma, and supporting provinces and territories and working with Indigenous communities to provide access to a full range of evidence-based treatment and harm reduction, as well as to create standards for substance use treatment programs.
The mandate letter asked the Minister of Justice to “Secure support for the swift passage of Bill C-5 to reduce reliance on mandatory minimum penalties and promote non-criminal approaches to drug possession”.
The mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety requires the minister to:
Develop a Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism in consultation with provinces, territories, Indigenous communities, Black communities and other stakeholders. As part of this work, [the government] consider how to ensure that federal correctional institutions are safe and humane environments, free from violence and sexual harassment, and promote rehabilitation and public safety.
As mentioned, in keeping with its public health-centred approach to addiction and the opioid epidemic that has affected families and communities across the country, the government introduced Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in December 2021. The bill proposes specific amendments that would repeal all mandatory minimum penalties in the CDSA and require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives, including diverting individuals to treatment programs instead of laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple drug possession. It would also require that all past and future convictions for the simple possession of controlled drugs be kept separate and apart two years after the bill received royal assent.
Our efforts have also been focused on addressing the opioid crisis. Budget 2022 proposed to provide $100 million over three years, starting in 2022-23 to Health Canada for the substance use and addictions program. The program supports harm reduction, treatment and prevention at the community level, and it builds on the $116 million provided in budget 2021 and the additional $66 million in the 2020 fall economic statement for the program.
I would also like to highlight that in June 2022, the government published its federal framework to reduce recidivism. The framework outlines the strategy that Canada will take working to address the barriers identified under each of the thematic priorities of housing, education, employment, health and positive support networks.
The framework identifies harms related to substance use among offenders as an urgent issue and states that more programming inside and outside of the institution to aid offenders in managing addiction will be beneficial. It highlights that the gains made during in-prison treatment programs can only be maintained if an offender is provided with sufficient aftercare supports and community treatment upon release.
Given all of these actions, let us look at what the bill proposes.
It proposes to isolate substance use treatments from existing integrated services and to enact them on their own at designated treatment facilities. It proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code to provide that a court, on request by a person sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary, may make a recommendation that they serve part or all of their sentence in a penitentiary or any area in a penitentiary that has been designated as an addiction treatment facility, provided that they meet certain conditions.
These conditions are, more specifically, where there is evidence of a pattern of repetitive behaviour indicating that substance use has contributed to the offender's involvement in the criminal justice system; that the offender consents to treatment; the court is satisfied that such an order would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing; that the offence was not prosecuted by indictment for which the maximum penalty is 14 years' imprisonment or life; and, finally, that the offence was not prosecuted by indictment for which the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment and the offence resulted in bodily harm or involved the use of a weapon, or involved the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs.
The Correctional Service of Canada would be required to fulfill such recommendations and adjust their rehabilitation model, which currently provides addiction treatment to all offenders who demonstrate substance use and addiction treatment needs.
Additionally, the bill proposes that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended to provide authority for the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to designate a penitentiary or area of a penitentiary to be an addiction treatment facility.
The bill would also amend the definition of “health care” in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to include “care that is provided as part of an addiction treatment program in a designated facility”.
It would authorize the Minister of Public Safety to enter into an agreement with a province “for the provision of addiction treatment programs to offenders in a designated facility and for payment by the minister, or by a person authorized by the minister, in respect of the provision of those programs”.
Under this bill, offenders that serve part or all of their sentences in a designated addiction treatment facility would still serve their required penalty of imprisonment.
I would point out that currently, these facilities do not exist.
The court-ordered penalty would still be served but with a focus on addiction treatment within a designated treatment facility.
At this point, I would like to outline our objections to the bill.
First, isolating those treatment services could create negative outcomes for offenders. People living with substance use disorders are not necessarily ready for active treatment. A spectrum of supports, which is not limited to active addiction treatment, must be explored and available to offenders living with substance use disorders.
The government also opposes the proposed bill because it would introduce amendments that could have a number of unintended negative consequences, including for overrepresented populations in the federal correctional system, such as indigenous and Black offenders. Further, the government recognizes that more needs to be done to support people experiencing harms from substance use.
That is why our government will continue to work with provincial and territorial governments, partners, indigenous communities, stakeholders, people with lived experience with substance use, and organizations in communities across the country to work toward reducing substance use harms.
My sense is that the federal framework to reduce recidivism is the place where the hon. member’s ideas can be explored. I thank her again for bringing this bill forward and for meeting with me to discuss the issues that she is concerned about. As I said earlier, I commit to working with the hon. member on this issue.
1421 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 6:44:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in response to the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on the Government of Canada's engagement with law enforcement and other partners leading up to the use of the Emergencies Act. While the hon. member may wish to stand on the side of the “freedom convoy”, we will stand with Canadians and with law enforcement, ensuring that the safety of Canadians is always our number one priority.
In January and February we saw illegal blockades at the borders and vital trade corridors that impacted our communities' safety, our economy and Canadians' jobs and livelihoods. The illegal protests shut down streets and businesses across Canada.
We recognized that these unprecedented simultaneous illegal blockades constituted a public order emergency, and we have carefully documented this. We also recognized that a safe, peaceful outcome would require the full engagement of provinces, territories and law enforcement. From the beginning, we brought these partners to the table to share situational intelligence, explore possible strategies to achieve a quick and peaceful resolution to the blockades, and discuss the resources needed.
To meet the requirements of the Emergencies Act, a public report describing the consultations we undertook before invoking the act has been tabled in both houses of Parliament. I would encourage all Canadians to read these two public reports. They illuminate the crisis facing Canada and the many discussions we had with partners to find a peaceful path forward. Through these discussions with law enforcement and others, it became clear that the police needed more tools to enforce the law and protect Canadians.
Given the size, number and entrenched nature of the blockades, it became clear that emergency measures were needed. Law enforcement needed the additional tools provided by the Emergencies Act. These tools allowed police to take quick, time-limited action and remove the blockade threat decisively.
Testifying before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on March 24, 2022, the former interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Steve Bell, confirmed, “From a policing perspective, the legislation provided the OPS with the ability to prevent people from participating in this unlawful protest”. He referred to the invocation of the act as “a critical piece” of these efforts.
The Emergencies Act was a measure of last resort, but it was a necessary one that was crucial in ending the illegal blockades. The act allowed the exceptional and temporary measures to prohibit public assembly leading to a breach of the peace. This was immensely helpful in dispersing the crowds blockading border crossings and city centres. The act also clearly designated protected areas around our critical infrastructure, like border crossings and key government buildings. Once the Emergencies Act was in force, engagement with law enforcement and our partners continued. We were determined that these tools should only be in place as long as absolutely necessary.
Testifying before the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency on May 10, 2022, the commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, said, “the measures enacted under the Emergencies Act provided all police officers across the country—not just the RCMP—with the ability to deal with blockades and unlawful public assemblies.” She testified it was her belief that the act “provided [law enforcement agencies] with the tools to resolve the crisis swiftly and peacefully”. Once it was clear the situation was no longer an emergency, we revoked the Emergencies Act.
This situation came to a peaceful conclusion because of our engagement with law enforcement, as well as our close collaboration with provinces, territories and municipalities.
611 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 6:48:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be clear. To the assertion the hon. member made that there was an infringement of civil liberties under the Emergencies Act, in fact, the act is quite clear that there was no infringement on civil liberties whatsoever, and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to apply even during the Emergencies Act. I do wish the hon. member would not imply such.
I will reiterate what I said during my remarks. Invoking the Emergencies Act was a measure of last resort, and it was supported by law enforcement. It gave them the additional tools they needed to end the illegal blockades peacefully.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
